El Sitherino Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I know, but just coming in and saying RC SUCKS. Is not what I would call healthy discussion. Perhaps if he was more specific and tried to be open for conversation. I don't mind people criticizing the game, but just coming in saying it sucks without giving reason is not something that should be tolerated. You and I both know forums are about contributing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDKnite188 Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I wouldn't try to discredit PCGamer. They are a major organization in the gaming industry and have been for a while. Out of curiousity I looked at some ratings for other recent prominent SW games: KOTOR: 91% JO: 91% JA: 86% BF: ? ... JK: 94% They don't have issues with Star Wars games. In fact, many of these have cracked their top categories of editor's choice and excellent. If they say 62%, perhaps it's best to take their word seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Except if you pay attention, none of those games (save Battlefront) have anything to do with the prequel trilogy. And you didn't list a score for BF, why not? And noones trying to discredit PCGamer, only the reviewer (if anyone is being discredited). As TXA pointed out, by starting out saying he's already dismissed Ep3 as crap, you know not to expect an unbiased review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith I know, but just coming in and saying RC SUCKS. Is not what I would call healthy discussion. Perhaps if he was more specific and tried to be open for conversation. I don't mind people criticizing the game, but just coming in saying it sucks without giving reason is not something that should be tolerated. You and I both know forums are about contributing. I agree wholeheartedly, I'm just clarifying that debate over the pros and cons of the game is fine, so people don't get the wrong idea. After all, I've seen just that sort of thing happen on the official LucasArts forums (one guy says something bad about a game, everyone attacks him, fights rage on and on). Everytime there's a new game we get new people and many of them don't understand our rules. They'll have to learn... and let's face it, we moderators get run ragged around launch time, so we're not always in the best of moods. So learn fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith Except if you pay attention, none of those games (save Battlefront) have anything to do with the prequel trilogy. And you didn't list a score for BF, why not? And noones trying to discredit PCGamer, only the reviewer (if anyone is being discredited). As TXA pointed out, by starting out saying he's already dismissed Ep3 as crap, you know not to expect an unbiased review. I would agree with that, except for that fact that (IIRC) Star Wars games that got great reviews (like Jedi Outcast) also contained digs at the prequel films. Who hasn't read one of those reviews that doesn't mention how annoying Jar Jar was, or how disappointing TPM was to so many fans? Yes, such a thing should have little to do with a review of a game, but then again, the Star Wars franchise is based on the movies. Still, the games should be judged on their own merits. That being said, it is possible for a reviewer to give a complete review without his editorial comments invalidating it. I agree that such editorial tangents can poison the well so to speak, but ultimately judgements about a game are also important. For example, let's say you had a game based on the 2004 Presidential election, and the reviewer prefaced his comments on the game by saying how disappointed he was that George W. Bush got re-elected, and what a bad president the reviewer believes he is. Somebody who liked GWB would probably be offended and possibly inclined to dismiss the rest of the review as biased, even if the things the guy said about the game were true and fair. So here I think the primary issue is about presentation. One might not agree with the reviewer's personal tastes, but ultimately their evaluation of the game may be accurate. Still, I see what you're saying. If they give us some whacky opinion out of left field we may not listen to whatever else they have to say (even if they are correct). Perhaps it's silly to expect a reviewer as "unbiased" because a review itself is an opinon. Now certain parts of it may be facts (the number of players the game has, the presence of certain bugs, etc), but much of it is opinion (do the graphics look pleasing? is the game challenging? is it "fun"?). Even though in journalism (except editorials) the ideal is "professional detachment" and "objectivity" the point of a review is to give (mostly) an opinion. By viewing lots of opinions, a person can make up their own mind. But with a lot of media, and I've seen this too many times to mention, a person who has already made up their mind about a product, will read and attack reviews of said product that don't agree with them. They will attack the critics and even the idea of critics, demanding that people make up their own minds. However I think such people miss the point. Reviews are supposed to inform, but I think they also serve the function of stimulating discussion. There are many ways to approach a piece of art to inform others about what they might want to spend their money on. So I wouldn't judge the critics too harshly, they have their work cut out for them. ; ) On the other hand, yes, do make up your own mind, that's the whole point. To me, a review is just another bit of information in the decision making process. But ultimately it's me who decides if I like it or not and why. Do I have a point in all this? I dunno. Maybe I'm just thinking out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 True, but a review is an opinion formed from playing a game and judging it for what it is. Throwing in this bit about the prequel trilogy shows he obviously has a preconcieved notion about anything affiliated in it, and automatically drags himself toward disliking something related to it. I'd find the reviewer more credible if he didn't throw out that rant on episode 3. I welcome criticism, as it only serves to better a game, that is if people that are in power to make it better read it and try to fix mistakes. But there is a difference between criticism and bashing. Dismissing a game because it's based in the prequel trilogy is bashing, maybe not in the highest sense, but it's hardly constructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDKnite188 Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 I didn't post the score of BF because I couldn't find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 People are free to vent about a game being bad, so long as its constructive. Posting 'the game sucks' isnt good enough. Most people dont like certain games because they cant play them! i for example, hate platform games..cos they bore me to tears. Not constructive..so you get the idea ;-) DMUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic03 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I think that PCGamer had a fair estimate of the game, I mean although the game was fun, I definitly would've been disappointed if I put down 50 bucks for this game. (I rented it for XBox) I would have given it about a 70% (it's a fun game, but nothing REALLY special) using the PCG scale, but I played it on XBox relativly free of bugs (except there was this one part where Fixer? got stuck against the wall), and if there are as many bugs in the PC version as the review claims, then it definitly deserved to be knocked down a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I think the reviews have seemed pretty accurate so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I think its fun, but like others said, nothign special. Atleast not yet. Probably a game you'll play through once or twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomie Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 It's things like this that still make me doubt. Usually, i'd run to the store with every new Star wars game coming out, and I liked every one of them, but after Battlefront, I'm not so sure anymore. Then when I see this score of 62%... I don't know wether or not I should get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I would suggest getting it, it's soooo much more fun than Battlefront. If you don't like it, you can always sell it on eBay. But I have a feeling you'll like it. *edit* eBay listing for RC You can pick it up for a rather good price if you don't feel like spending $50 on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oidar Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Indeed, This game is an example of when things are done right. Battlefront was not. Just the multiplayer alone is better than battlefront. You don't have to suffer with a frame rate cap or cartoonish type character models. (I wasn't and still am not a fan of battlefront, I think it was just a stinking cashgrab) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Originally posted by Kurgan Point conceded... for now at least. ; ) Point unconceded, with the following caveat: In regards to any single player bugs, I can't speak about those until I've finished the campaign, which I have resolved not to do until I've seen ROTS in May. I however did play the First Level (stopping there) since I was certain it didn't contain any spoilers (it didn't) and was just introduction anyway. I only observed one bug there, and that was one of my team (Sev I think) got stuck behind a bacta station and refused to move on. For awhile he was floating, so I killed him a few times and revived him, but he still wouldn't move. I had to finish the map without him (thankfully it let me), and he was back at the save point of the beginning of the next level. I noticed you couldn't pick up a Geonosian Beam Weapon (for more ammo) after grabbing the first one (until it was empty), but that might not have been a bug. Of course the way the weapon is supposed to work, it wouldn't really makes sense for it to run out (reduce your health over time or something?). In MP the only bug I've noticed is that the Trandoshans make a human sounding grunt when they take falling damage, and the occasional crash to the desktop when hosting a server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Let's hope they'll fix that in the patch when they release it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I'd get it. MP is fun, it just needs more people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adillon Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 and more 'permanent' servers ... i.e. ones that aren't shut down when the player running the server is losing the game. just talking from my experience, as i've only been able to play MP once, and unfortunately picked a server that fulfilled this role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Heh I know what you mean. People leaving is the #1 game killer in this game. I confess that I did leave my last game, because my teammate was complaining at me (we were losing at short one person, but I got our team's one capture that round) and told me to leave. Ironically for him of course I was the host, so... I was done playing for the day anyway. ; ) Despite that, I think yeah, people are already pretty uptight about leaving. You get a kill or two on somebody and they leave, or they simply join then leave without any explanation. Now I'm not saying I expect a detailed apology everytime somebody quits, but it just seems like folks don't know what they want. It's not like anyone should have mastered this game already. I don't care how many times you beat the 6 hour SP campaign, that won't make you good at MP. And what game can realistically be mastered so you are unbeatable in 7 days? One time (this was probably just a bug of not displaying the join message) it said a guy left who never joined. The "<name> joined" message never appeared! So a guy who wasn't even there in the first place, left...! It may also be that people get bored fast. After playing some fun Assault for an hour, people start to disappear. Then I can sit in an empty game and wait, and wait, etc. I figure they must have gone to a DM server or something. So I host that and people return, repeat. So many options I can't change on the fly. I have to instead, "disconnect" then relaunch the server with new settings. I can't even change my character's skin on the fly. It would be nice to be able to do that... I lived with limitations like this in JK1, but that was 7 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warmonger180 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 yeah, i get that having to reload a level bug too, but then my entire squad is down including me doesn't happen, tho. something's gotta be done about that . as for the rest of the review, he's gotta have a prob with his rig cuz i've not had the probs he had. 1st time thru i had to shoot one of my guys and then revive. he got stuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.